If you felt that familiar knot in your stomach when Oregon’s lawmakers officially returned to Salem, you’re not imagining it. For gun owners across the state, the start of a new legislative session rarely signals calm. More often, it means another round of proposals that treat a constitutional right like a government-issued favor.
And right on cue, here we are again.
This time, the focus is House Bill 4145, a piece of legislation that lawmakers are quietly floating as a “fix” to the disaster that was Measure 114. Don’t let the softer language fool you. This isn’t a retreat. It’s a rewrite. Same philosophy, different packaging.
Measure 114 was already one of the most aggressive gun control measures in the country. It took an inalienable right and turned it into a privilege that required advance permission from the state. Pre-purchase licensing. Mandatory approvals. Bureaucratic delays. All of it sold as “common sense,” none of it grounded in reality.
Now, HB 4145 aims to repeal Measure 114 on paper while preserving its core framework in practice.
Do you love Oregon?
Sign up for monthly emails full of local travel inspiration and fun trip ideas. In each newsletter we'll share upcoming events, new things to do, hot dining spots and great travel ideas.
Yes, technically, the bill repeals Measure 114 outright. That sounds like good news—until you read the rest of it. What replaces it is essentially the same system, rewritten by legislators instead of voters, and shielded by a new timeline that pushes implementation out to January 1, 2028.
That delay alone should raise eyebrows.
When Measure 114 passed, the state had no infrastructure, no funding, and no plan to implement the licensing system it demanded. Deadlines came and went. Courts stepped in. Chaos followed. Now, rather than admit the entire concept was flawed from the start, lawmakers are choosing to hit reset and try again—this time with more time to build the machinery.
Under HB 4145, Oregonians would still need a permit to purchase a firearm before exercising their rights. The process depends on where you live. If you’re inside city limits, you can apply through either your local police department or your county sheriff. If you live in an unincorporated area, the sheriff is your only option.
Either way, the message is the same: permission first, rights second.
The bill also expands disqualifiers in ways many people haven’t fully processed yet. A single non-domestic violence misdemeanor assault conviction within the last four years is enough to block you from obtaining a permit. Not a felony. Not a pattern of violent crime. One incident. A bar fight. A scuffle at a sporting event. A mistake that already carried consequences.
Under this framework, that’s enough to lose access to a constitutional right for four years.
Then there’s the waiting period. Under the original law, the state had 30 days to issue a permit. HB 4145 stretches that window to 60 days. Two full months where your ability to exercise a right depends entirely on bureaucratic efficiency—or the lack of it.
A right delayed is a right denied. That phrase isn’t rhetoric. It’s reality.
And let’s talk about cost. The permit fee would jump from $65 to $150, a 130 percent increase. For some families, that alone becomes a barrier. Rights shouldn’t come with a price tag—especially one that keeps climbing.
Supporters of the bill point out that law enforcement is exempt from many of these requirements, both on and off duty. That’s great for them. For everyone else, it changes nothing.
So why now?
One theory is that lawmakers are nervous about an upcoming decision from the Oregon Supreme Court in the Arnold v. Kotek case. That challenge was argued exclusively under Oregon’s own constitution, which historically allows firearm restrictions only in narrow categories: manner of use, manner of possession, and truly dangerous individuals.
During oral arguments, several justices appeared skeptical of Measure 114’s framework. If the court rules against it, the state may be hoping that repealing the ballot measure and replacing it with HB 4145 somehow sidesteps the ruling.
That’s a risky assumption.
The same constitutional questions apply. The same legal standards are in play. A legislative rewrite doesn’t magically cure a constitutional violation.
What’s happening here isn’t about safety. It’s about control. It’s about normalizing the idea that exercising a right should require approval, fees, waiting periods, and paperwork. It’s about wearing people down until they stop pushing back.
Oregon gun owners have seen this movie before.
House Bill 4145 may not look dramatically worse than Measure 114, but it continues the same dangerous trend: treating rights as privileges and trusting bureaucracy to decide who deserves them.
If you care about the Second Amendment in Oregon, this is not the moment to tune out. This is the moment to pay attention, speak up, and push back—because the direction is clear, and it isn’t accidental.
